W3C

WCAG 2.0 Evaluation Methodology Task Force Teleconference

30 Aug 2012

Agenda

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Present
Shadi, Mike, Detlev, Liz, Martijn, Kathy, Sarah, Vivienne, Eric, Kerstin, Peter
Regrets
Tim, Alistair, Moe
Chair
Eric
Scribe
Kerstin

Contents


Summary of Open Comments

Shadi: Has everyone looked at the comments?

who was speaking?

Shadi: WCAG WG will discuss the comments of the WG, everyone is welcome

Eval TF Comment #24 http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730#c24

<Detlev> fine

<Kathy> fine

Eric: changing resolution in 24

<MartijnHoutepen> +1

Change often in usually?

<Detlev> change usually into often

Vivienne: is usually correct?

Discussion between Peter and Vivienne upon 'usually' and 'often'

<Detlev> fine

<vivienne> okay with me

Eric: propose to close, change into often and wait for comments

Eval TF Comment #29 http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730#c29

<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20120827#step1e

<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20120827#step4b

<shadi> https://www.w3.org/2007/10/htmldiff?doc1=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FWAI%2FER%2Fconformance%2FED-methodology-20120730&doc2=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FWAI%2FER%2Fconformance%2FED-methodology-20120827

<shadi> DF: not clear what Step 1e means in practice

<shadi> ...where to start and where to stop

<shadi> VC: confuses me as well

<shadi> ...understand what it says but not sure what the implications are

<shadi> ...leaves me a bit confused

seems I'm back, so I can take over again

Yes

<shadi> SAZ: motivation of this section is for the Evaluation Commissioner to select certain techniques, such as from a government or provider

Detlev: Issue was brought up by Alistair, Context unclear now,

<Detlev> agree with Vivienne

Sorry, haven't understood ┬┤what Vivienne said

<vivienne> Kerstin, I was just saying that I'd like someone to tell me why 3.1.5 step 1e is in there - doesn't make much sense to me

Kathy: in Canada you can only use the sufficient techniques and not the advisory
... better to refer just to the sufficient techniques

Shadi: not sure this request came from Alistair alone
... when should we have a look at the techniques section again? bevor or after the working draft, more comfortable not before in a rush

Who is speaking?

Martijn: Implementation of scripting techniques as use case

Eric: We could add a note to techniques section for the feedback of the public

Peter: Explain in a note what the purpose is for specific feedback

<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20120827#status

Eric: We are lloking for feedback for all sections,
... and point to specific sections

Vivienne: better a note for particularly this section
... we could improive the wording more

<vivienne> I'm good with Eric's suggestion

<Detlev> fine with me

Eric: We add a note, aksing specific to that section, discussing after the public review period, issue in tracker list

<Liz> +1

<shadi> RESOLVED: add editor note with brief description of what we are looking for to step 1e to ask for public review on this section and open an issue to discuss this issue further after publication

<MartijnHoutepen> +1

<vivienne> +1

ok, for me, even if I have reservations against testing techniques even, as optional

<shadi> [[add a pointer to this section from "status of this document" too]]

Eric: close this point and come back after

Eval TF Comment #32 http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730#c32

Issue now "Accessibility Statement"

<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20120827#step5b

Eric we expected a lot of discussion, this is what happened. we made a change in the document, step 5b

<shadi> [[The website owner commits to ensuring the accuracy and validity of the accessibility statement;]]

<vivienne> I don't see that statement in the draft

<shadi> was: [[The website owner commits to removing any valid issues known to them within 10 business days;]]

Peter: I'm not comfortable with the wording
... the findings should be solved in a review period

Shadi: the conclusion in the email thread was not to delete it

<korn> "Provide an optional Evaluation Conclusion Statement" perhaps

Shadi: discussion: removing the section or improving the wording
... motivation was to avoid statements like: I tested it 5 years ago
... Idea is to give guidance to accessibility statement accoding to WCAG2
... and to be sure that statements ar valid and up to date

Peter: didn't say that there was a consenses
... compare with WCAG, where it says 'conformance' and not 'accessibility statement'

<shadi> [[Accessibility Statement]] -> [[Methodology Conformance Statement]]

<shadi> [[make clear that this is a public conformance statement]]

Korn: Yes and make sure that it is a public statement

Detlev: not sure if conformance statement gives the right idea

Shadi: no one can control what people are doing with WCAG-EM

Detlev: very little advice about how to test, except the optional techniques

Vivienne: is not in favor of leaving the statement

sorry, didn't get the point of what Vivienne says

Mike: the accessibility is useless to have it there

<Detlev> agree with Mike

Mike: the accessibility statement is useless to have it there (correction of scribed sentence before)

Peter: this is not a conformance claim

<shadi> [[Provide an Accessibility Statement (optional)]] -> [[Statements of Website Conformance (Optional)]]

Shadi: idea of statement rather than claim is to avoid misunderstandings before of the wordings in WCAG2, WCAG-EM and so on

<shadi> [[An accessibility statement shall be provided.]] -> [[A website conframcne statement according to this methodology shall be provided.]]

Eric: thinks this didn't solve what Peter says

think this is not for the protocoll or? ;-)

<Detlev> good point, Eric

Eric: if we take it out, there will we no public feedback
... would prefer keep it in to see the reaction
... Or put a remark, that we are not sure about the section

Peter: would like to develop the suggestion of Shadi further
... I'm against public review of the text as it is

Shadi: think no one was in favor of writing a statement like this
... intend is a a11y statement according to this methodology
... we should add the forgotten word "according to this methodology"

<Detlev> (dazed and confused now...)

can't scribe and speak

<vivienne> I'd like to see it left as is, but just add the 'according to this methodology' bit

<Liz> Add "according ---" and left as is.

Mike: conformance with wcag2 is adressed there
... does conformance claim is part of wcag-em?

Shadi: wcag2 is page per page , claim is just for pages
... the author is responsible for the claim
... idea is, if you follow the methodology, you can make conformance claim

Peter: finish the statement and post it on the mailing

Shadi: hope next week we will be ready for publication of the next working draft

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.136 (CVS log)
$Date: 2012/08/31 05:56:58 $